Current State of Research Gap-Years in Orthopedic Surgery Residency Applicants: Program Directors' Perspectives.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine how orthopedic residency program directors (PDs) evaluate residency applicants who participated in a research gap-year (RGY). Methods: A 23 question electronically administered survey was created and emailed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) orthopedic residency PDs for the 2020-21 application cycle. PDs were emailed directly if active contact information was identifiable. If not, program coordinators were emailed. The survey contained questions regarding the background information of programs and aimed at identifying how PDs view and evaluate residency applicants who participated in a RGY. Descriptive statistics for each question were performed. Results: Eighty-four (41.8%) of 201 PDs responded. Most respondent programs (N=62, 73.8%) identified as an academic center. The most common geographic region was the Midwest, N=33 (39.3%). Few programs (N=3, 3.8%) utilize a publication "cut-off" when screening residency applicants. When asked how many peer-reviewed publications were necessary to deem a RGY as "productive," responses ranged from 0-15 publications (median interquartile range 4.5 [3-5]). Forty-one (53.3%) PDs stated they would council medical students to take a RGY with USMLE Step 1 scores being the #1 factor guiding that advice. More PDs disagree than agree (N=35, 43.6%; vs N=22, 28.2%) that applicants who complete a RGY are more competitive applicants, and 35 PDs (45.5%) agree research experiences will become more important in resident selection as USMLE Step 1 transitions to Pass/Fail. Conclusion: Program directors have varying views on residency applicants who did a RGY. While few programs use a publication cutoff, the median number of publications deemed as being a "productive" RGY was approximately 5. Many PDs agree that research experiences will become more important as USMLE Step becomes Pass/Fail. This information can be useful for students interested in pursuing a RGY and for residency programs when evaluating residency applicants. Level of Evidence: IV.

Incidence of Research Gap Years in Orthopaedic Residency Applicants: The New Standard?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the incidence of a research gap year (RGY) in orthopaedic residency applicants at a single institution over a seven-year span; (2) compare applicant characteristics between applicants who did a RGY with those who did not, and (3) report variables associated with match success for RGY applicants. METHODS: Applicants who reported taking a year out from medical school to pursue research on their Electronic Residency Application Service to a single institution from 2014 to 2015 through 2020 to 2021 were reviewed. RESULTS: A strong positive correlation was noted between the percentage of applicants who participated in a RGY and time (Pearson correlation: r = 0.945 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.666-0.992], P = 0.001). Over the study period, 11% of applicants had done a RGY, most commonly after their third year of medical school (82.7%). Most RGY applicants matched orthopaedics (72.8%) and 19.4% matched at the same institution they did their RGY. CONCLUSION: The percentage of RGY applicants to the study institution nearly doubled between 2014 to 2015 and 2020 to 2021. RGY applicants had a higher match rate than nationally published match rates. Further study is needed on a national level.

Reduction techniques for intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of various reduction techniques on postoperative alignment following intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation of tibial shaft fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-eight adult patients who underwent IMN fixation of a tibial shaft fracture between 2008 and 2017. INTERVENTION: IMN fixation with use of one or more of the following reduction techniques: manual reduction, traveling traction, percutaneous clamps, provisional plating, or blocking screws. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Immediate postoperative coronal and sagittal plane alignment, measured as deviation from anatomic axis (DFAA); coronal and sagittal plane malalignment (defined as DFAA >5° in either plane). RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Manual reduction (MR) alone was used in 11% of fractures, and adjunctive reduction aids were used for the remaining 89%. After controlling for age, BMI, and fracture location, the use of traveling traction (TT) with or without percutaneous clamping (PC) resulted in significantly improved coronal plane alignment compared to MR alone (TT: 3.4°, TT+PC: 3.2°, MR: 4.5°, P = .007 and P = .01, respectively). Using TT+PC resulted in the lowest rate of coronal plane malalignment (13% vs 39% with MR alone, P = .01), and using any adjunctive reduction technique resulted in decreased malalignment rates compared to MR (24% vs 39%, P = .02). No difference was observed in sagittal plane alignment between reduction techniques. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) results indicated excellent intraobserver reliability on both planes (both ICC>0.85), good inter-observer reliability in the coronal plane (ICC = 0.7), and poor inter-observer reliability in the sagittal plane (ICC = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive reduction techniques during IMN fixation of tibia fractures is associated with a lower incidence of coronal plane malalignment when compared to manual reduction alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Diagnosing Fractures of the Distal Tibial Articular Surface in Tibia Shaft Fractures: Is Computed Tomography Always Necessary?

OBJECTIVES: To identify the incidence of distal articular fractures in a series of distal third tibia shaft fractures and to report the utility of both computed tomography (CT) scans and Radiographic Investigation of the Distal Extension of Fractures into the Articular Surface of the Tibia (RIDEFAST) ratios for identification of articular involvement. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Four hundred seventeen patients with distal third tibia shaft fractures were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Intramedullary nail or plate fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of articular fracture, time of diagnosis, and RIDEFAST ratios. RESULTS: One hundred one of the 417 distal third fractures (24%) had a fracture of the distal tibia articular surface. Of these 101 fractures, 41 (41%) represented an extension of the primary fracture line and 60 (59%) were separate malleolar fractures. Of the 101 articular fractures, 95 (94%) were identified preoperatively and 6 (6%) were identified intraoperatively. Of the 95 fractures identified preoperatively, 87 (92%) were identified on plain radiographs and 8 (8%) by CT scan. Thirty-five preoperative CT scans were performed on distal third tibia shaft fractures in search of an intra-articular fracture. In 27 patients (77%), no articular fracture was present, representing an overall yield of 23% among CT scans performed to rule out an articular fracture in distal third tibia shaft fractures. RIDEFAST ratios for all 101 distal tibia shaft fractures with articular involvement and 100 fractures with no articular involvement were not significantly different (P > 0.05) using both coronal and sagittal plane measurements. CONCLUSIONS: CT scans performed on distal third tibia shaft fractures in search of articular fractures had a low yield (23%). Widespread use of CT scan to diagnose fractures of the distal tibia articular surface in the setting of distal tibia shaft fractures does not seem warranted. No statistically significant differences in RIDEFAST ratios were found between fractures with and without articular involvement, indicating that more work is necessary before RIDEFAST can be used to reliably rule out articular involvement in this setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Carrier Rate in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carrier rate among surgical patients on an orthopaedic trauma service and to determine whether screening is an effective tool for reducing postoperative MRSA infection in this population. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-eight patients with operatively managed orthopaedic trauma conditions during the study period. Two hundred three patients (82%) had acute orthopaedic trauma injuries. Forty-five patients (18%) underwent surgery for a nonacute orthopaedic trauma condition, including 36 elective procedures and 9 procedures to address infection. INTERVENTION: MRSA screening protocol, preoperative antibiotics per protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: MRSA carrier rate, overall infection rate, MRSA infection rate. RESULTS: Our screening captured 71% (175/248) of operatively treated orthopaedic trauma patients during the study period. The overall MRSA carrier rate was 3.4% (6/175). When separated by group, the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort had an MRSA carrier rate of 1.4% (2/143), and neither MRSA-positive patient developed a surgical site infection. Only one MRSA infection occurred in the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort. The nonacute group had a significantly higher MRSA carrier rate of 12.5% (4/32, P = 0.01), and the elective group had the highest MRSA carrier rate of 15.4% (4/26, P < 0.01). The odds ratio of MRSA colonization was 10.1 in the nonacute group (95% confidence interval, 1.87-75.2) and 12.8 for true elective group (95% confidence interval, 2.36-96.5) when compared with the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low MRSA colonization rate (1.4%) among patients presenting to our institution for acute fracture care. Patients undergoing elective surgery for fracture-related conditions such as nonunion, malunion, revision surgery, or implant removal have a significantly higher MRSA carrier rate (15.4%) and therefore may benefit from MRSA screening. Our results do not support routine vancomycin administration for orthopaedic trauma patients whose MRSA status is not known at the time of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Expert medical testimony for your injured patients.

Many injured patients sustain some type of loss. If someone else is responsible for the injury, the injured patient can pursue compensation for this loss. In the course of treating an injured patient, you may be asked to participate in the legal process to resolve such claims. The basic components of a personal injury claim are reviewed. An overview of the legal process will help clarify your role in the legal process. Enhanced understanding will allow you to provide important medical testimony for your injured patient.